Early Access - a suggestion

[Harthwain]

What makes you think CP will be any different; and how will it be is probably the better question?

It comes down to how the whole leveling idea is done. I liked "The Elder Scrolls" series for their different approach. In most games you have to kill stuff or complete quests to improve your character. TES felt more organic in this area. How is leveling up resolved in PnP?

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

It comes down to how the whole leveling idea is done. I liked "The Elder Scrolls" series for their different approach. In most games you have to kill stuff or complete quests to improve your character. TES felt more organic in this area. How is leveling up resolved in PnP?

I have to admit I don't quite remember exactly how the skillprogression worked in CP 2020, but I have a recollection that there were no level ups, and you got skillpoints to spend.

I don't really mind the ES 'learn by doing' system per say, but it does get really, really grindy there, the complete behind the scenes automation takes a good chunk of the fun away from the character progression (especially with non combat skills), and skills not making much of a difference (from Oblivion onwards) doesn't help. Depends on how you use it. I think I'd rather have a system close to Vampire - Bloodlines as far as progression goes, because it still leaves me some say and versatility in how my character develops.

 

[Suhiira]

That's nearly every cRPG ever made; Baldur's Gate, Icewinde Dale, Fallout, Witcher, Wizardry, you name it, heck, even PST has it's trashmobs.

What makes you think CP will be any different; and how will it be is probably the better question?

To an extent you're correct.
It's a matter of how much influence the "storyline" has on the game and it's play.
You mentioned Baldurs Gate and PS:T, and yes the story will send you off to different areas to explore and yes as the game progresses these newly accessible areas generally have better loot then the ones you've been in previously. But in both the above cases you also gained access to new information that helped define "who" your character was, shape future decisions, and ultimately your "final" decision that brought your saga (i.e. the game) to a close.
A weak storyline may well direct you to new game areas/loot/battles but there is little reason to go there EXCEPT said loot/battles as little, if anything in these new areas helps your character define themselves.

 

[blank_redge]

How is leveling up resolved in PnP?

In PnP, the game Referee assigned Improvement Points to players at the end of a session; they could assign general IP, or IP specific to a skill, to be spent towards that skill.

 

[Nars]

Early access have one distinct flaw, it's hype killer. There is no big thrill in waiting for premiere, there is no mystery, cause tons of youtube playthroughs are already online. And thats apart from the fact, that AAA titles workflow and development are totally incompatible with Early Access idea. If it would, Acti and EA would already hijack this buisness model, cause they like their money (especially in advance). Thats why only two types of games go that route: smaller projects from relatively small dev team, multiplayer, non story driven mmo like games focused on mechanics. And all of them are from studios that need additional funding to complete the game.

 

[dragonbird]

2) You still haven't explained how vision of the developer can exclude player input. From topic "Cyberpunk 2077 - Your ideas for a dream RPG ":

If they want input from players, then that means they are already fine with people trying to "influence their vision", so this argument hold no water. Either that or they're misleading their users that their input matters (because if it would then it'd influence the game).

The key difference is still money changing hands.

Input DOES matter, but it should be while still in the conceptualisation phase, this is inherent to any software development lifecycle. Over the last year, and for some time into the future, they can pull ideas from the forums. But once the vision is complete, and they have got deep into development, changes become much harder to implement, have knock-on effects, and may be directly contradictory to that vision.

 

[Harthwain]

And thats apart from the fact, that AAA titles workflow and development are totally incompatible with Early Access idea. If it would, Acti and EA would already hijack this buisness model, cause they like their money (especially in advance).

Perhaps. Or everybody could see how they're making games and it'd be a disgrace. "Total War: Rome 2" come into mind. This game wasn't ready and someone forced developers to push it out of the door. I crossed out SEGA after that.

Input DOES matter, but it should be while still in the conceptualisation phase, this is inherent to any software development lifecycle. Over the last year, and for some time into the future, they can pull ideas from the forums. But once the vision is complete, and they have got deep into development, changes become much harder to implement, have knock-on effects, and may be directly contradictory to that vision.

Fair enough, that's why early access - in terms of feedback - would be a good idea in earlier stages of making the game. If they went too deep there is does indeed little purpose to involve feedback, if they don't intend to do something about it for aforementioned reasons. I'd like to stress though, the developer surely wouldn't incorporate feedback that's contradictory to their vision. It's a given.

 

[Suhiira]

A developer probably wouldn't on their own, but certain publishers frequently force developers to do things not in their best interests.

 

[dragonbird]

... and CDPR is their own publisher

 

[Suhiira]

... and CDPR is their own publisher

Which gives them a BIG advantage.

 

[Harthwain]

Anyway, I wish to answer to Nars' opinion (contained in this post) more fully - "DayZ" (the game, not the mod) is currently in Early Access on Steam and is being developed by Bohemia Interactive. The guys who made ARMA series. Would you consider them AAA titles? If yes, then I'd say that the workflow and development are totally compatible with Early Access. It might be pretty early for the gaming industry to fully understand the impact of making game in Early Access. Innovations usually take time before they are used on wider scale or are appreciated by the world.

 

[Nars]

Would you consider them AAA titles?

No.

If yes, then I'd say that the workflow and development are totally compatible with Early Access. It might be pretty early for the gaming industry to fully understand the impact of making game in Early Access. Innovations usually take time before they are used on wider scale or are appreciated by the world.

Bear in mind, that after you purchase DayZ in EA, you get "full" game. A MMO with zombies focused on survival and PvP. This type of game by definition is very EA friendly (no story, no scripted events, VA, cutscenes etc.). And very costly (for independent studio) in development.

Ask yourself why H1Z1 is not in EA despite being a game that suit very well in this business model.

 

[Harthwain]

No.

Why not?

Bear in mind, that after you purchase DayZ in EA, you get "full" game. A MMO with zombies focused on survival and PvP. This type of game by definition is very EA friendly (no story, no scripted events, VA, cutscenes etc.). And very costly (for independent studio) in development.

Ask yourself why H1Z1 is not in EA despite being a game that suit very well in this business model.

Dean Hall issued a pretty clear warning that people who don't want to be the part of the development process (and put emphasis on this) that they can always but the game later to avoid dissatisfaction. Discouraging people from buying the game isn't something you'd expect from someone who's intending to rise money that way. The most important part is this: “"It's a chance for those who want to be part of that whole process. [...] we really are targeting it at a core audience who want to get deeply involved in a very barebones experience that is a platform for future development." I'd say the reasons for this EA are pretty clear. You can't involve players that much without EA, so it stands to reason that EA has been used as a way to open the game for those who want to take part in development process and such approach is mutually beneficial for all involved.

 

[Sardukhar]

I enjoyed being part of the DayZ process, bugs and all, but I don't think I'd call it an AAA game in terms of budget or scope.

I do favour Early Access and developers responding to feedback. We all have editors - the trick is to find good ones. I honestly think most of the poor games out there would have benefited greatly from focussing on fan responses, if well-considered, intelligent and convincing. Hitman: Absolution, I'm looking at you.

Developers, after all, are really fans with a much more potent skillset and a bigger budget. Plus drive.

The trick is to fold your userbase suggestions into your creation so that it adds, not subtracts from the whole.

 

[Suhiira]

Unfortunately it's human nature to listen to the loudest voice not the most reasonable one.
So a developer has to be smart enough to ignore most of the responses they'll get and pay attention to the worthwhile ones.

 

[Sardukhar]

Unfortunately it's human nature to listen to the loudest voice not the most reasonable one.
So a developer has to be smart enough to ignore most of the responses they'll get and pay attention to the worthwhile ones.

Arguable and I would agree.

I think if the first were accurate, we'd have made little progress in the past few thousand years, and we have. I would totally agree the second is true and probably worth the effort. We'll see how Wasteland 2 and Original Sin turn out, but so far, they are proving the value of that method.

 

[Suhiira]

I'm a bit disappointed with Original Sin, but that's MY fault not the games. It's not exactly the sort of game I thought it was going to be.

Wasteland 2 however looks better and better with every release, and I'm pretty certain one or two of my suggestions have actually been adopted, hard not to like a game when they change it to suit your tastes *chuckles*.

 

[Harthwain]

I would point out that they aren't necessarily changing it to suit somone's taste, but because suggestion was a sound one and shared by many. If something is seen as poor or bad by many then no matter how solid the vision appears to be - it'll be poor or bad and won't be adding a value to the game. Quite the opposite in fact. That's why being in touch with the players can be of such importance. Developer making a poor choice isn't a proof of method being wrong in all cases.

 

[Nars]

Why not?

Scope, budget, business "buglessness", completeness (ARMA III debut without SP component), sales (under 1 OOO OOO units 9 month after debut), gained awards, reviews (under 80%) etc.

Dean Hall issued a pretty clear warning that people who don't want to be the part of the development process (and put emphasis on this) that they can always but the game later to avoid dissatisfaction. Discouraging people from buying the game isn't something you'd expect from someone who's intending to rise money that way. The most important part is this: “"It's a chance for those who want to be part of that whole process. [...] we really are targeting it at a core audience who want to get deeply involved in a very barebones experience that is a platform for future development." I'd say the reasons for this EA are pretty clear. You can't involve players that much without EA, so it stands to reason that EA has been used as a way to open the game for those who want to take part in development process and such approach is mutually beneficial for all involved.

I know he did. He indeed marketed DayZ EA debut as a chance to participate in development process. Cause thats what people pay for. And I have no problem with that, cause it works for some kind of games for some kind of devs. You paid for your involvement, so you expect that your opinion matters more (especially when it's backed by others like you). It simply can't work with triple a titles. Because of big like hell budget, devs are trying to include as many gamers as they can at the same time preserving character and uniqueness of their game. Any change to mechanics after prototyping phase cost a lot of money, players input besides minor tweaks loses importance, so ppl may feel cheated. Early Access makes sense in very focused niche game for narrow audience and relatively small budget. Cause that the point they making game for certain type of players, so they can appreciate their input.

 

[Harthwain]

Scope, budget, business, completeness (ARMA III debut without SP component), sales (under 1 OOO OOO units 9 month after debut), gained awards, reviews (under 80%) etc.

Reviews and awards do matter a little - if anything at all - I am afraid. I see your point in all the rest of what you've mentioned though.

My point with EA is more that it gives tools to players to make their input more valuable, because they know what they're dealing with. I am currently watching how the maker of "Limit Theory" is explaining his design principles. That's something people lack when they put their input or make their expectations on one title or another. Game can sound like a good one on paper, but its design principles have to work together. That's why we often see misjudged features making their appearance in games. I am not talking about sort of features that are received with mixed feelings. I am talking about features that are universally perceived as poor and yet made it into the game. "Hitman: Absolution" is a prime example. It's not a bad game, but some features made game to get much poorer reception overall. It was made by people who worked on the series from the very beginning and knew how to make games. That's why I limit my trust in developers overall. They are not omnipotent, even when they always have the best interests of their game, and their players, at heart. I don't have belief, only hope.